How can this be allowed???

This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
your retarded BS is weak. no one was asking for a license based on their sexual orientation. they were asking for one to marry the person they loved, that person happened to be of the same sex. But please, keep up the retarded BS, it is entertaining
Click to expand...
Just like asking for a non-profit charitable organization license such as a Good Will when one is actually trying to have a for-profit business like Walmart, one must seek a license for what they are actually trying to do in order to get it.

I agree sexual orientation was not a restriction in getting a marriage license/certificate. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Now, you're bringing love back into it, though. I've never heard of a state that had a love-clause in their marriage applications. Love is not a requirement. Sexual orientation, as you just agreed, was not a requirement.

No one was ever denied a license or certificate based on either of these things.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Just like asking for a non-profit charitable organization license such as a Good Will when one is actually trying to have a for-profit business like Walmart, one must seek a license for what they are actually trying to do in order to get it.

I agree sexual orientation was not a restriction in getting a marriage license/certificate. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Now, you're bringing love back into it, though. I've never heard of a state that had a love-clause in their marriage applications. Love is not a requirement. Sexual orientation, as you just agreed, was not a requirement.

No one was ever denied a license or certificate based on either of these things.
Click to expand...

your bull#### just keeps getting more and more retarded
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
TP, abortion after 9 days ok for rape, incest?
Click to expand...
This is where my personal views and legal views split. You'll notice I made many, many, many mentions of personal responsibility and the willingness of mother and father to create the child (even if it was unwanted, they made the choice to risk it).

In my opinion, no, it's not ok, because it is still murder. In my opinion of what the law should say, I'm very torn. I'm ashamed to say I think it should be ok because the mother (assuming she was the one raped) was not a willing participant in the activity that caused the life to be created. In that sense, I think THAT is forcing a mother to carry a child outside of her will - she didn't put it there. I'm not comfortable with that on a personal level, but that's what I think the law should be.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
It's the lengths you seem interested in to control a woman's right to choose while trying to not consider it as such.
I used to struggle with that so, I'm not mocking you.

:buddies:
Click to expand...
I strongly support her right to choose what to do with her body, and whether or not to risk getting pregnant. I do not support that she has a right to kill people if that choice results in something she decides wasn't what she wants.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Substantive answer, addressing the points. Try it, you might find it enriching.
Click to expand...
all I am seeing from you is retarded bull####. you make no points you just spin your bull#### into a retarded web and stand back and proclaim victory.

many states did not issue licneses to gays who wanted to marry each other. spin that into whatever bull#### web you want. :yay:
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Midnightrider said:
all I am seeing from you is retarded bull####. you make no points you just spin your bull#### into a retarded web and stand back and proclaim victory.

many states did not issue licneses to gays who wanted to marry each other. spin that into whatever bull#### web you want. :yay:
Click to expand...
Speaking of "spun up"... :killingme
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
all I am seeing from you is retarded bull####. you make no points you just spin your bull#### into a retarded web and stand back and proclaim victory.

many states did not issue licneses to gays who wanted to marry each other. spin that into whatever bull#### web you want. :yay:
Click to expand...
I understand your frustration. No state had sexual-orientation clauses, and certainly no "love" clauses, so that takes all of your points away. That's clearly frustrating for you, and causes you to act out and call names. But, it doesn't change the facts.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
I understand your frustration. No state had sexual-orientation clauses, and certainly no "love" clauses, so that takes all of your points away. That's clearly frustrating for you, and causes you to act out and call names. But, it doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...
i see, you couldn't spin that into anything. :yay:

I have been calling your 'theory' retarded BS since i first read it. It doesn't frustrate me at all.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
i see, you couldn't spin that into anything. :yay:

I have been calling your 'theory' retarded BS since i first read it. It doesn't frustrate me at all.
Click to expand...
Yes, you've been calling names all along. That's normal for you. I've yet to hear a substantive discussion on with what you disagree, other than you think the effect is discriminatory. But, the laws were not.

Now, if you want to try and actually make the point about the effect, we can continue the discussion. Please try. I'll wait.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Yes, you've been calling names all along. That's normal for you. I've yet to hear a substantive discussion on with what you disagree, other than you think the effect is discriminatory. But, the laws were not.

Now, if you want to try and actually make the point about the effect, we can continue the discussion. Please try. I'll wait.
Click to expand...
Since you ignored it, i'll make it again.

Midnightrider said:
all I am seeing from you is retarded bull####. you make no points you just spin your bull#### into a retarded web and stand back and proclaim victory.

many states did not issue licneses to gays who wanted to marry each other. spin that into whatever bull#### web you want. :yay:
Click to expand...
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
Since you ignored it, i'll make it again.
Click to expand...
I didn't ignore it. I addressed it.

They were asking for something that didn't exist, and got upset about that.

SCOTUS subsequently overruled the 10th amendment in favor of a grossly distorted interpretation of the 14th.

But, prior to that, there had never been a sexual orientation clause in any state law. The effect was that people who wanted something different to be treated as the same couldn't have that. But, no one was ever denied marriage based on sexual orientation.

You can spin your interpretation of the effect all you want, but the fact remains the fact.
 
PsyOps

PsyOps

Pixelated
BigBlue said:
I find it funny that is only a problem for the Obama administration and none of this went on before he became President ,interesting.:faint:

:bs:
Click to expand...
Far be it for me to expect you to have a clue about what I've posted in this forum over the years. I have been anti-abortion for decades. I don't hold presidents, or congress, or government accountable for it; I hold the people accountable - society. You obviously missed where I have stated over and over that this is a social problem, not a legal problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top